ΑΡΧΑΙΑ ΙΘΩΜΗ

Βρε Μανώλη,

πριν απαντήσω στον Μπρούκλη δικηγόρο σου από την Αστόρια σχετικά με την εξώδικη ειδοποίηση (Cease and Desist Letter) που μου έστειλε, θα ήθελα να μου λύσεις μια απορία.

Στις 2/10 του 2012, στο Αποκαλυπτικό Δελτίο του Ακη Παυλόπουλου στο Extra3, σε μια παρέμβαση του ο Στέφανος Χίος σε διάβασε την απόφαση του ομοσπονδιακού δικαστηρίου των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών εις βάρος σου για φοροδιαφυγή.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcgIfngLuaM (19:06 του βίντεο)

Άρθρο εδώ: http://www.aegeantimes.gr/article.asp?id=55889&type=1&kata=0

Ως απάντηση, του έδωσες μια δικαιολογία ότι το χρέος στο κράτος των ΗΠΑ ήταν κάποιας νεκρής αδελφής σου και όχι δικό σου.

Διαβάζοντας τώρα ολόκληρο το κείμενο της αποφάσεως του δικαστή στην περιβόητη εκείνη υπόθεση 9:94-cr-00772-MLO, USA v. Lambrakis (βλέπε συνημμένο) κάτι μου λέει ότι ψεύδεσαι.

Αποσπάσματα:

The defendant, a calendar year taxpayer, filed Form 4868, Application For Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, through his authorized representative on or about April 15, 1988. With Form 4868 the defendant sent a check in the sum of $ 2,500.00, the amount of the estimated tax liability. It appeared thereafter that the actual tax liability was $ 24,628.00…

…The indictment herein clearly apprises the defendant of the nature of the charges against him. The two counts of the indictment are simple; failure to file income tax returns for the calendar years 1987 and 1988. Each count alleges a failure to file by October 17, 1988 and October 16, 1989…

…The government has indicated in its Memorandum of Law In Response to Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motions, that the accountant who filed Forms 4868 and 2268 in each tax year acted on behalf of the defendant and such acts bind the defendant. In addition, the government has informed defendant that it intends to offer in evidence his history of not filing, and his New York State conviction for failure to file pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Government’s Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motions, dated August 26, 1994.

Μετάφραση αποσπάσματος:

Επιπλέον, η κυβέρνηση έχει ενημερώσει τον εναγόμενο ότι προτίθεται να προσφέρει αποδείξεις σχετικά με το ιστορικό του ιδίου περί μη υποβολής (φορολογικών δηλώσεων), και την καταδίκη του σε πολιτειακό δικαστήριο της Νέας Υόρκης για μη υποβολή φορολογικών δηλώσεων…

Λες να έκανε λάθος το government; Ένα απ’ τα δυό: Η ήταν λάθος τους, η ψεύδεσαι. Τώρα καταλαβαίνω γιατί τα βρήκες με τον φοροφυγά Wozny.

Επιπλέον, στην εξώδικη ειδοποίηση που μου έστειλε ο Μπρούκλης από την Αστόρια, μου γράφει τα ακόλουθα, μεταξύ άλλων:

Μετάφραση:

Καλείστε να τερματίσετε και να απέχετε όλων των δυσφημίσεων του χαρακτήρα και φήμης των Δρ. Λαμπράκη και κ. Σώρρα. Αν σας αντιπροσωπεύει δικηγόρος, σας παρακαλώ δώστε του αυτή την επιστολή αμέσως και ζητήστε του να μας ενημερώσει για την εκπροσώπηση.

Ο Δρ. Λαμπράκης είναι ένας καλά σεβαστός γιατρός και επιφανές μέλος της τοπικής κοινωνίας και Ελληνικών κοινοτήτων της πόλης της Νέας Υόρκης. Ανάλωσε πέραν των εικοσιπέντε χρόνων υπηρετώντας αυτές τις κοινότητες, τόσο επαγγελματικά όσο και κοινωνικά, κτίζοντας μια θετική φήμη η οποία έχει αμετάκλητα καταστραφεί με μια σειρά από ψευδή δυσφημιστικές δηλώσεις που έγιναν από τηλεοράσεως, ραδίου, ιντερνετ, εφημερίδες και άλλα γραπτά κείμενα. Ως αποτέλεσμα τέτοιων ψευδών, κακόβουλων και δυσφημιστικών άρθρων, επηρεάστηκε αρνητικά το ιατρείο του Δρ. Λαμπράκη και έχει ζημιωθεί με ένα ποσό που ξεπερνά τα 10 εκατομμύρια δολάρια ($10,0000,000.00).

Ένας χρόνος δεν πέρασε από το παραπάνω άρθρο στο aegeantimes.gr όπου ήταν και η πρώτη φορά που ασχολήθηκα μαζί σου (25/9/2012). Δηλαδή, τον χρόνο πάνω από 10 εκατομμύρια ντόλαρς έβγαζες;

Το government το γνωρίζει αυτό;

ΓΙΑΛΤΟΥΡΙΔΗΣ

ΥΓ. Σε παρακαλώ να ενημερώσεις τον Μπρούκλη ότι θα του απαντήσω σύντομα. Χαιρετισμούς στον Διαμαντόπουλο.

……………………………………………………………..

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, -against- EMMANUEL LAMBRAKIS, Defendant.

CR 94-0772 (MLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 27, 1994, Decided

September 27, 1994, Filed

DISPOSITION: [*1] Defendant’s motion to dismiss count one as untimely was denied. Defendant’s application for a bill of particulars was also denied.

COUNSEL: For EMMANUEL LAMBRAKIS, defendant: Leonard Reed Rosenblatt, NYC, NY.

U. S. Attorneys: Paulette Wunsch, Special Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Brooklyn, NY.

JUDGES: MICHAEL L. ORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge.

OPINION BY: MICHAEL L. ORENSTEIN

OPINION

ORDER

The defendant, by Notice of Motion dated August 22, 1994, seeks an order 1) dismissing count one, (failure to file income tax return for year 1987), of the within two-count indictment, and 2) directing the Government to file and serve a bill of particulars.

BACKGROUND

The defendant, a calendar year taxpayer, filed Form 4868, Application For Automatic Extension of Time To File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, through his authorized representative on or about April 15, 1988. With Form 4868 the defendant sent a check in the sum of $ 2,500.00, the amount of the estimated tax liability. It appeared thereafter that the actual tax liability was $ 24,628.00. See Exhibit A to Rosenblatt Declaration, dated August 22, 1994. (Hereinafter “Exhibit A”). Internal Revenue Service regulation § 1.6081-4 provides an [*2] automatic four month extension if the taxpayer or his authorized representative files Form 4868 by the due date for filing the income tax return. 26 C.F.R. § 1.6081-4 (1994). Accordingly, the Internal Revenue Service granted defendant an extension to file until August 15, 1988.

Upon the expiration of the four month automatic extension, defendant’s authorized representative sought an additional three month extension to file, i.e. October 15, 1988. See Form 2688 of Exhibit A. On Form 2688 the defendant’s authorized representative verified that an application for a previous extension was granted. The Internal Revenue Service granted the additional three month extension until October 15, 1988. Id.

DISCUSSION

A. Statute of limitations

Count one of the indictment, filed July 21, 1994, charges the defendant with willfully failing to file his 1987 personal income tax return, a misdemeanor. 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (1988). The defendant asserts that the Government failed to obtain the indictment for the crime alleged in count one before the applicable statute of limitations expired. Therefore, the defendant argues that count one should be dismissed as untimely.

A six year statute [*3] of limitations period applies to such crime. 26 U.S.C. § 6531 (4) (1988). The statute of limitations period begins to run on the due date plus the amount of additional time obtained in extensions of time to file. See United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1055, 88 S. Ct. 926 (1968). As the defendant obtained an extension to file his 1987 income tax return until October 15, 1988, it would appear that under Habiq, the indictment was filed within the statute of limitations period.

Nevertheless, the defendant claims that his original application for an automatic extension, Form 4868, was a nullity. He contends that his estimate of tax liability was only $ 2,500.00 and the actual tax liability was $ 24,628.00. Relying upon Crocker v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 899 (1989), he argues that his failure to properly estimate tax liability voids the automatic extension. See also Perry v. Commissioner, 1990 Tax Ct., 59 T.C.M. (CCH) 533, 1990 T.C. Memo 228 (1990). Consequently, he continues, if the automatic extension is void, the last day to file the return was April 15, 1988, and an indictment for failure to file on July 21, 1994, is untimely.

The defendant’s [*4] reliance upon Crocker is misplaced. In Crocker and Perry, the court confronted the question of whether the taxpayer was liable for the addition to tax pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1) (1988), and not a statute of limitations issue. Crocker at 900; Perry at 530.

Even if the holdings in Crocker and Perry apply to a criminal prosecution for failure to file, neither court expressed a bright line rule that failure to properly underestimate tax liability voids ab initio the automatic extension of time to file a return.

In response to the Commissioner’s claim that the taxpayer’s Form 4868 was invalid for failure to properly estimate the tax liability, the Crocker court stated:

In our view, a mere comparison of estimated tax liabilities with true tax liabilities will not reveal whether petitioners estimates were ‘proper.’ An estimate is no more than that. It is, ‘A valuing or rating by the mind, without actually measuring, weighing, or the like. A rough or approximate calculation only.’ Blacks Law Dictionary 494 (5th Ed. 1979).

To require exactitude in the estimation called for under section 1.6081-4(a)(4), Income Tax Regs., would be unreasonable. [*5] The taxpayer would have no need for an extension of time within which to file his return if he could determine his true tax liability at the time he submits the Form 4868. The mere fact that petitioners underestimated their 1981 and 1982 tax liabilities, standing alone, does not cause their applications to be invalid and the automatic extensions to be void. See Hudspeth v. Commissioner, 51 T.C.M. (CCH) 175, T.C. Memo 1985-628. [Dec. 42, 564(M)].

Crocker, 92 T.C. at 906-07; see also Perry at 538.

Instead, the courts in Crocker and in Perry indicated that the taxpayers were required to make a reasonable estimate of the tax liability based upon the information available when the request for an extension was made. Crocker at 907; Perry at 538; see also Berlin v. Commissioner, 59 F.2d 996 (2d Cir. 1932).

With respect to the statute of limitations in a criminal prosecution, it is not within the province of the taxpayer to make a unilateral determination of whether a bona fide estimate of tax liability was made. The defendant, Emmanuel Lambrakis, through a professional tax preparer, a certified public accountant, applied for and received a four month extension of time [*6] to file his income tax return. He cannot now step forward to make the self-serving admission of a fraud in estimating his tax liability, and thereby void the automatic extension, in order to establish a statute of limitations defense to his criminal prosecution for failing to file.

Under Internal Revenue Service regulations, the application for an extension is terminable, not void, at the discretion of the Internal Revenue Service, not the taxpayer. 26 C.F.R. § 1.6081-4(c) (1994). Section 1.6081-4(c) clearly provides that the district director or the director of a service center may, “in his discretion, terminate at any time an automatic extension by mailing to the taxpayer, or the person who requested such extension for the taxpayer, a notice of termination.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.6081-4(c) (1994). The Internal Revenue Service did not send a notice of termination. Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service approved an application for an additional three month extension to file. See Form 2268 attached to Exhibit A.

Accordingly, this Court holds that based upon the filing of Form 4868, the defendant’s time to file his 1987 income tax return was extended automatically to August 15, 1988. [*7] Thus, the filing of the indictment on July 21, 1994 was well within the expiration date of the six year statute of limitations. 26 U.S.C. § 6531 (4) (1988).

B. Bill of Particulars

The defendant’s application for a bill of particulars is also denied as either seeking evidentiary matter, improperly seeking the government’s trial strategy, or that the particulars have been furnished.

The government is not required to disclose the manner in which it will attempt to prove the charges set forth in the indictment or to reveal its trial strategy. See United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. Facciolo, 753 F. Supp. 449, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 1990), affirmed sub. nom. United States v. Skowronski, 968 F.2d 242 (2d Cir. 1992).

The indictment herein clearly apprises the defendant of the nature of the charges against him. The two counts of the indictment are simple; failure to file income tax returns for the calendar years 1987 and 1988. Each count alleges a failure to file by October 17, 1988 and October 16, 1989.

The government has indicated in its Memorandum of Law In Response to [*8] Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motions, that the accountant who filed Forms 4868 and 2268 in each tax year acted on behalf of the defendant and such acts bind the defendant. In addition, the government has informed defendant that it intends to offer in evidence his history of not filing, and his New York State conviction for failure to file pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Government’s Memorandum of Law in Response to Defendant’s Pre-Trial Motions, dated August 26, 1994.

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing information provided to the defendant, his application for a bill of particulars is denied as within the discretion of the Court. See United States v. Panza, 750 F.2d 1141, 1148 (2d Cir. 1984); United States v. Feola, 651 F. Supp. 1068, 1132 (S.D.N.Y 1987), aff. 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 (1989); United States v. Leonard, 817 F. Supp. 286, 301 (E.D.N.Y. 1992).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Uniondale, New York

September 27, 1994

MICHAEL L. ORENSTEIN

United States Magistrate Judge